Well, all five of the Patriachates (Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem) still exist today, and like Mor said, all of the sees that were founded by Apostles still exist (so far as I know - I'm not sure how many sees the Apostles founded when all was said and done).

The see of the Patriarch of Antioch is still Antioch and will always be Antioch. There are several reasons for residing in Damascus; 1) Several earthquakes struck that region and much of Antioch was destroyd, 2) Antioch is now located in Turkey and for long periods Syria was more tolerant to Christians then Turkey/Ottoman, 3) Damascus became the dominant trade city of the region with the influx of Islamic control and the previous mention of the destruction of Antioch.

Even the Roman Catholic "Patriarch" of Antioch lives in Damascus because of many of these reasons. I am not sure how big the Christian population is in Antioch (Antakya) but I doubt it is very large because it is in Turkey and they did a very good job of killing off the Christian population in the last 400 years.

Istanbul was ConstantinopleNow it's Istanbul, not ConstantinopleBeen a long time gone, ConstantinopleNow it's Turkish delight on a moonlit night

Every gal in ConstantinopleLives in Istanbul, not ConstantinopleSo if you've a date in ConstantinopleShe'll be waiting in Istanbul

Even old New York was once New AmsterdamWhy they changed it I can't sayPeople just liked it better that way

So take me back to ConstantinopleNo, you can't go back to ConstantinopleBeen a long time gone, ConstantinopleWhy did Constantinople get the worksThat's nobody's business but the Turks

Istanbul (Istanbul)Istanbul (Istanbul)

Even old New York was once New AmsterdamWhy they changed it I can't sayPeople just liked it better that way

Istanbul was ConstantinopleNow it's Istanbul, not ConstantinopleBeen a long time gone, ConstantinopleWhy did Constantinople get the worksThat's nobody's business but the Turks

So take me back to ConstantinopleNo, you can't go back to ConstantinopleBeen a long time gone, ConstantinopleWhy did Constantinople get the worksThat's nobody's business but the Turks

Istanbul

Logged

Now where were we? Oh yeah - the important thing was I had an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time. They didnÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t have white onions because of the war. The only thing you could get was those big yellow ones...

The see of the Patriarch of Antioch is still Antioch and will always be Antioch. There are several reasons for residing in Damascus; 1) Several earthquakes struck that region and much of Antioch was destroyd, 2) Antioch is now located in Turkey and for long periods Syria was more tolerant to Christians then Turkey/Ottoman, 3) Damascus became the dominant trade city of the region with the influx of Islamic control and the previous mention of the destruction of Antioch.

Not to mention that the Turks were not about to allow TWP Orthodox Patriarchs to continue within the borders of "Turkey".

Quote

Even the Roman Catholic "Patriarch" of Antioch lives in Damascus because of many of these reasons. I am not sure how big the Christian population is in Antioch (Antakya) but I doubt it is very large because it is in Turkey and they did a very good job of killing off the Christian population in the last 400 years.

As noted above about Avignon - the Popes (of Rome) also resided for some periods at Ravenna.

Demetri

Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

RomanByzantium,In that case, several of your medieval Popes were not in fact "Bishop of Rome" at all, but Bishops of Avignon.In unaware of any Orthodox who accept what the Turks did - I've never referred to it as Istanbul, even in conversations with non-Orthodox (much to their confusion until I explain.)

Seraphim

But rome still existed even when the popes where in exile to france. constantinople does not exist anymore.

The see of the Patriarch of Antioch is still Antioch and will always be Antioch. There are several reasons for residing in Damascus; 1) Several earthquakes struck that region and much of Antioch was destroyd, 2) Antioch is now located in Turkey and for long periods Syria was more tolerant to Christians then Turkey/Ottoman, 3) Damascus became the dominant trade city of the region with the influx of Islamic control and the previous mention of the destruction of Antioch.

Even the Roman Catholic "Patriarch" of Antioch lives in Damascus because of many of these reasons. I am not sure how big the Christian population is in Antioch (Antakya) but I doubt it is very large because it is in Turkey and they did a very good job of killing off the Christian population in the last 400 years.

But antioch is different because it still exists to this day. constantinople does not exist at all.

Given the predisposition of RB to defend the Roman position, allow me to rephrase his question to: "How many of the "apostolic" sees still remain in (or are back to) their original place of establishment/founding?

Let us further assume that we refer to those apostolic sees as the original 5 Patriarchates of Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem.

Within these parameters, only the Patriarchate of Antioch seems to be displaced for the reasons already mentioned, with the Patriarchate of Constantinople in danger of being smoked out of Istanbul.

The Patriarchate of Jerusalem is, of course, presently under the strictures of the Israeli government and the Patriarchate of Alexandira is slowly being engulfed by Islam.

As a vibrant, alive, and freely "functioning" Patriarchal See, central to the governance of the territorial reaches of the Church/Churches under its provenance, arguably only the See of Rome is extant to this day, which leads me to reference made by RB on the current signification of the "Holy See."

In modern parlance, the "Holy See" refers to none other than the Roman See. Alternately, it refers to the Vatican City State, de facto et de jure, as enshrined by international law and comity and recognized by ALL members of the United Nations. Thus, plenipotentiaries appointed by individual countries to the Vatican present their "letters of credence" to the Pope as ambassadors to the Holy See.

But antioch is different because it still exists to this day. constantinople does not exist at all.

What does that mean? Both of them exist, even if the Turks renamed one of them to suit a Turkic corruption of the Greek (eis ton polli).

In any case, I for one (and I know I am going to get slagged for this) think that we should have a new first hierarch in Orthodoxy, Constantinople is not coming back, and the fact that we have the first hierarch located there is doing great harm to the Orthodox Church. We're the first ones to argue that the canons at Chalcedon that raised the See of Constantinople had a pragmatic origin based on the status of that city as the imperial capital ... but of course, it is no longer the capital and it is no longer Orthodox, so the basis for that see being the First See, the primus-inter-pares, no longer obtains.

That begs the question of who should be that first hierarch, where he should be located and the like. It seems likely that, because we do not have an earthly emperor to impose this on us, we will likely not agree as to who should be the first hierarch. Moscow seems a likely choice, but noone else will agree. Some have proposed the creation of a new Ecumenical Patriarchate somewhere ... maybe Athens or maybe even in New York. Not likely either would fly with the other Orthodox Churches. So likely we will remain frozen with the current system that, in a sense, ridicules our own ecclesiology.

Reminds me of something an Orthodox priest quipped to me once: "If it looks organized, then you know that it can't be Orthodox".

But antioch is different because it still exists to this day. constantinople does not exist at all.

Sure it exists. If the Italian government renamed Rome, would the Rome cease to exist? By your logic, the Pope no longer resides in Rome, but a new nation created from a former part of the city of Rome called Vatican City, which is it's own government. Your original question was answered, which is, all of the original patriarchal Sees still exist. Your attempt to insinuate that a certain See doesn't exist because of name change of the City by the civil authorities is weak. Give it a rest.

Sure it exists. If the Italian government renamed Rome, would the Rome cease to exist? By your logic, the Pope no longer resides in Rome, but a new nation created from a former part of the city of Rome called Vatican City, which is it's own government. Your original question was answered, which is, all of the original patriarchal Sees still exist. Your attempt to insinuate that a certain See doesn't exist because of name change of the City by the civil authorities is weak. Give it a rest.

Your last sentence makes so sense whatsoever.

Don't get bend out of shape. No one is insinuating anthing. Your sesibilities are getting in the way. I knoew that this was going to happen.

well, Rome still exists. but the pope is head of vatican city state to protect him from political influence and it is Bishop of Rome, Italy.

What does that mean? Both of them exist, even if the Turks renamed one of them to suit a Turkic corruption of the Greek (eis ton polli).

Brendan

But it is called Istanbul in the country political state of Turkey. The Christian city of Constantinople only exists in the pages of history and memory. Constantinople was destroyed and rebuilt and taken over by the Muslims. That is the reality.

We can't go one saying that the middle east is Christian when in fact it is no longer. a long time ago... it was but, we can't blind ourselves with delusions that those are Christian lands under Muslim control.

We can't go one saying that the middle east is Christian when in fact it is no longer. a long time ago... it was but, we can't blind ourselves with delusions that those are Christian lands under Muslim control.

We really can't go on saying Europe is either. Whereas the Muslims have taken control of the Middle East, secular humanism has taken hold in Europe. France has pretty much outlawed any and all public religious expression. One look at Italian television will toss any idea that it's a "Christian" nation into the proverbial fire. There's quite a force within the EU to expunge any mention of Europe's Christian past from the European Constitution.

« Last Edit: May 06, 2004, 03:46:05 PM by Schultz »

Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen

Would you please expound on what, to you, determines whether a particular see has become non-existant?

ok... here goes... my attempt at explaining what I mean.

If the city or place seizes to exist. How can you be bishop of rome without a rome, patriarch of antioch without antioch, etc...

To me it sounds funny to say or hear " The patriarch of constantinople", when where he lives is called Istanbul, Turkey. Constantinople is long gone and it will never return...unless by miracle of God.

They should be called Rome, Istanbul, Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem.

The Dutch don't go around calling new york ...new amsterdam.

What happens when the christian community is no longer in these communities, can they still be called holy sees even with no christians living there?

Please, Please don't take what I am writing as an insult. I know how sesitive these topics can be. I am only want to generate some freindly polemics.

What does that mean? Both of them exist, even if the Turks renamed one of them to suit a Turkic corruption of the Greek (eis ton polli).

In any case, I for one (and I know I am going to get slagged for this) think that we should have a new first hierarch in Orthodoxy, Constantinople is not coming back, and the fact that we have the first hierarch located there is doing great harm to the Orthodox Church. We're the first ones to argue that the canons at Chalcedon that raised the See of Constantinople had a pragmatic origin based on the status of that city as the imperial capital ... but of course, it is no longer the capital and it is no longer Orthodox, so the basis for that see being the First See, the primus-inter-pares, no longer obtains.

That begs the question of who should be that first hierarch, where he should be located and the like. It seems likely that, because we do not have an earthly emperor to impose this on us, we will likely not agree as to who should be the first hierarch. Moscow seems a likely choice, but noone else will agree. Some have proposed the creation of a new Ecumenical Patriarchate somewhere ... maybe Athens or maybe even in New York. Not likely either would fly with the other Orthodox Churches. So likely we will remain frozen with the current system that, in a sense, ridicules our own ecclesiology.

Reminds me of something an Orthodox priest quipped to me once: "If it looks organized, then you know that it can't be Orthodox".

Brendan

How can you create a new ECP without an emperor? The next see in line should be regarded within orthodoxy as first among equals. I believe it is alexandria.

If the city or place seizes to exist. How can you be bishop of rome without a rome, patriarch of antioch without antioch, etc...

To me it sounds funny to say or hear " The patriarch of constantinople", when where he lives is called Istanbul, Turkey. Constantinople is long gone and it will never return...unless by miracle of God.

But, RB, the point is that the city hasn't ceased to exist. True, it has a different name in common parlance (although, as I believe was noted earlier in this thread, some/many/most Orthodox don't seem to have accepted the legitimacy of the name change beyond mere convention), but it is the same place. If "Jane Doe", upon marriage, becomes "Jane Smith", she doesn't cease to exist; she merely has a different surname that addresses a different condition (married vs. single). You do not have a problem with the Bishops of Rome being called Bishops of Rome even when they were displaced in Avignon because Rome still existed. So does Constantinople.

If your entire argument is based on the fact that one city has had its name changed (as it seems to me), it's a pretty lame argument.

Logged

"Do not tempt the Mor thy Mod."

Mor no longer posts on OCNet. He follows threads, posts his responses daily, occasionally starts threads, and responds to private messages when and as he wants. But he really isn't around anymore.

But, RB, the point is that the city hasn't ceased to exist. True, it has a different name in common parlance (although, as I believe was noted earlier in this thread, some/many/most Orthodox don't seem to have accepted the legitimacy of the name change beyond mere convention), but it is the same place. If "Jane Doe", upon marriage, becomes "Jane Smith", she doesn't cease to exist; she merely has a different surname that addresses a different condition (married vs. single). You do not have a problem with the Bishops of Rome being called Bishops of Rome even when they were displaced in Avignon because Rome still existed. So does Constantinople.

If your entire argument is based on the fact that one city has had its name changed (as it seems to me), it's a pretty lame argument.

Not only has the city changed in name but in everything. culture, religion and national origin. it is not only a name change as you say. if it far more than that.

should I refer to new york as new amsterdam? and say that it is really a dutch city and not an american english one.

I know many people who call Isreal Palistine and refuse to call that country anything other then Palistine or Occupied Palistine. The Turks had no desire to change the name of Constantinople, it is only through their misunderstanding and lack of understanding of the greek languague that they called it es ton poll. And to your logic Antioch is now called Antaky in turkish so therefore Antioch does not exist with your criteria but the RC church still has a "Patriarch" of Antioch in the region. And the pope still refers to the Orthodox bishop in Instanbul as the Patriarch of Constantinople, so if you are a good Roman Catholic who follows the popes example you should therefor also refer to him as the Patriarch of Constantinople.

I know many people who call Isreal Palistine and refuse to call that country anything other then Palistine or Occupied Palistine. The Turks had no desire to change the name of Constantinople, it is only through their misunderstanding and lack of understanding of the greek languague that they called it es ton poll. And to your logic Antioch is now called Antaky in turkish so therefore Antioch does not exist with your criteria but the RC church still has a "Patriarch" of Antioch in the region. And the pope still refers to the Orthodox bishop in Instanbul as the Patriarch of Constantinople, so if you are a good Roman Catholic who follows the popes example you should therefor also refer to him as the Patriarch of Constantinople.

sure cause they are in denial of the obvious.

It does not matter if there was a misunderstanding. the turks conquered the city and turned it into a muslim city. they changed its culture and religion for ever.

Just the way granada was a muslim city and much of southern spain but now it is a christian stroghold. muslim granada has nothing in common with christian granada. two very different places in two different time in history.

I don't know how to answer that, so I won't. I will instead ask a question. Why does it matter to you if the Orthodox world, Roman Catholics, etc. refer to the Ecumenical Patriarch(ate) as the Patriarch(ate) of Constantinople?

Logged

"Do not tempt the Mor thy Mod."

Mor no longer posts on OCNet. He follows threads, posts his responses daily, occasionally starts threads, and responds to private messages when and as he wants. But he really isn't around anymore.

I don't know how to answer that, so I won't. I will instead ask a question. Why does it matter to you if the Orthodox world, Roman Catholics, etc. refer to the Ecumenical Patriarch(ate) as the Patriarch(ate) of Constantinople?

It doesn't matter to me. I just asked because it sounds funny referring to a place that no longer exists as if it still does. If the pope and the orthodox world like to reminisce about those things, I am no one to argue with them.

I would like to hear your take on how the culture and religion of the city of Rome today is the same as the culture and religion of the city of Rome when Saint Linus was Pope.

The difference is that rome was never taken over by muslim culture and religion and became a beacon of that civilization.

Rome had a christian population and in due time became dominant culturally and politically. the reverse happened in constantinople. The conqueror change the name of the city and proceeded with its plan until they got to istanbul, wholly muslim in all matters.

Just the same way like New Amsterdam became New York. Dutch ways gave way for english ways.

The difference is that rome was never taken over by muslim culture and religion and became a beacon of that civilization.

At first, your point was that the culture and religion of the city changed, and so it's no longer the same place it once was. Well, the present culture of old Rome is very different from what it was in the early days of the Church, and the present religion (Roman Catholicism) is in many ways very different from what it used to be (Orthodoxy). But now are you making an exception...Islam makes all the difference? Change is change, RB.

For your argument's sake, I hope Rome doesn't get taken over by Muslim culture and religion...the way things are going, you never know.

Logged

"Do not tempt the Mor thy Mod."

Mor no longer posts on OCNet. He follows threads, posts his responses daily, occasionally starts threads, and responds to private messages when and as he wants. But he really isn't around anymore.

At first, your point was that the culture and religion of the city changed, and so it's no longer the same place it once was. Well, the present culture of old Rome is very different from what it was in the early days of the Church, and the present religion (Roman Catholicism) is in many ways very different from what it used to be (Orthodoxy). But now are you making an exception...Islam makes all the difference? Change is change, RB.

For your argument's sake, I hope Rome doesn't get taken over by Muslim culture and religion...the way things are going, you never know.

First, orthodoxy was never the religion of Rome. orthodoxy was/is the religion of the east NOT the west.

I am not making no exception whatsoever. one city remained christian while the other became a muslim stronghold.

As for your last comment... I highly doubt it. europeans are very concience of what/whom they are.

[First, orthodoxy was never the religion of Rome. orthodoxy was/is the religion of the east NOT the west. ]

That's true only if you base Orthodoxy completely on Ritual. Which seems to be what all those Catholics in communion with Rome seem to do. Especially those within the Unia who seem to use it as an excuse to make the false claim that they are 'Orthodox In Communion With Rome'

Orthodox Catholicity in reality, is based on a faith that is expressed in the unchanging doctrines and dogma it believes and professes. It has neither added to those doctrines (as Rome), subtracted from those doctrines as Protestants, or changed those doctrines as both the RCC & Protestant churches have done. Everything it still believes is that which was believed and formulated when the church was still basically one and united. It alone comes closest to St Vincents definition of what the Catholic Church is -

"Hold fast that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all."

So, yes at one time Rome was Orthodox in its faith.

Orthodoc

« Last Edit: May 06, 2004, 10:38:43 PM by Orthodoc »

Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.

[First, orthodoxy was never the religion of Rome. orthodoxy was/is the religion of the east NOT the west. ]

That's true only if you base Orthodoxy completely on Ritual. Which seems to be what all those Catholics in communion with Rome seem to do. Especially those within the Unia who seem to use it as an excuse to make the false claim that they are 'Orthodox In Communion With Rome'

Orthodox Catholicity in reality, is based on a faith that is expressed in the unchanging doctrines and dogma it believes and professes. It has neither added to those doctrines (as Rome), subtracted from those doctrines as Protestants, or changed those doctrines as both the RCC & Protestant churches have done. Everything it still believes is that which was believed and formulated when the church was still basically one and united. It alone comes closest to St Vincents definition of what the Catholic Church is -

"Hold fast that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all."

So, yes at one time Rome was Orthodox in its faith.

Orthodoc

yes orthodoc, you keep believeing that.

then please explain why is it that you believe things that was not believed by the 2nd century christians.